Re: Charles Leadbetter

[Thomas Lunde]

Title: Re:  Charles Leadbetter

PS:  I assumed on first reading that Ian had written this lengthy post, it was only after I had read it again and written my comments that I realized it was written by Charles Leadbetter, so rather than spend the time re-writng, please accept my apoligies Ian and to other readers please substitute Charles where I have assumed Ian. Dear Ian: Great essay, thought provoking and it ties in with a lengthy essay using similar thoughts and language as one I read by Rifkin just a few days ago on the net.  I'm troubled with your combined visions.  Though they have a logical consitency and hold ideas that I could certainly endorse, they are based on several presuppositions that I am beginning to question. In todays Citizen was a lengthy article on the "immortality cell" in which researchers have found ways to extend the replication of skin cells from their normal dividing life of approx 70 times to over 400 times.  They indicate that this could increase healthy lifespan to 120 years within the lifetime of the researchers, who I would assume are in their 50's. Therefore, within 20 years, we may have a creme or a simple medical treatment that would literally double the lifespan of people.  At 6 billion people, with a doubled lifespan, we are looking at the equivalent gain of another 6 billion people to the demographics with this development. On the net, I read about 6 employees of the Alaska gas pipeline saying that safety violations have created conditions for a major disaster - not a question of how, but when they maintain.  This points to a critical problem the whole world over.  Infrastructure is wearing out and their is no money to replace it, whether it is bridges, sewer systems, roads or pipelines that carry vital energy supplies to create electricity, fuel industry, and heat homes. Jay Hanson, continually supplies me with information in which oil will peak in 2005 while the conventional experts extend that a meagre 5 years.  Now matter how pollyanish a person is, regarding alternate energy sources, the possiblity of retooling our world and refinancing an alternate source while dealing with the extra costs of the existing system, just boggle the mind. And then there is global warming in which much of our capital may be going into remedial work of repairing the damage caused by a weather system going mad. And then there is war.  Which causes us to drop everything and focuses all our resources on the destruction of an enemy.  The byproducts of that, damaged human beings, pollution, infrastructure damage, best brains redirected to finding more effective ways of killing and on and on. And then there is mutant germs, showing up in our hospitals, large germ warfare stocks, often in countries that can no longer be trusted to keep them safe, or other countries who may feel driven to use them. And then there is nuclear power, nuclear waste. And then there is shortage of drinkable water And then there is loss of agricultural land and topsoil. And then there is deforestation. And then And Now, none of these issues are assumed to be critical in your respective essays.  Rather, there is the assumption that, yes, they are there but ---. In this case, I think we had better stay in front of the but. Ian wrote: It is no coincidence that all the three forces I have identified are intangible: they cannot be weighed or touched, they do not travel in railway wagons and cannot be stockpiled in ports. The critical factors of production in this new economy are not oil, raw materials, armies of cheap labour or physical plants and equipment. Those traditional assets still matter but they are a source of competitive advantage only when they are vehicles for ideas and intelligence. Thomas: Plainly stated in the above paragraph is the disclaimer " traditional assets still matter".  I would question that assumption very strongly.  I would say that reality is stronger than knowledge and those items are the reality through which knowledge works and that without them, knowledge ain't worth a tinkers damn. Ian wrote: > Knowledge is our most precious resource: we should organise society to > maximise its creation and use. Our aim should not be a third way, to balance > the demands of the market against those of the community. Our aim should be > to harness the power of both markets and community to the more fundamental > goal of creating and spreading knowledge. Thomas: Knowledge may turn out to be not our most precious resource, but the very thing that has created the conditions of the most terrible future. > > This article is an edited extract from Charles Leadbeater's "Living on Thin > Air: the new economy", published this month by Viking, £17.99 > >> http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199907120019.htm >> >> >